Probably related to the recent measures proposed by the Polish government to criminalize the use of the phrase âoePolish death campsâ.

The very asking of the headline question reeks of "freedom of speech as long as it's the right one".

People should be able to discern speech the agree with vs. speech they don't on their own after considering every opinion made.

Speech "carriers" have all the right to censor the speech in their media as they see fit (not being the government and all) but the very moment the prevent someone to speak their mind on their platform (no matter how radical they may sound) they forfeit their right to call themselves "a bastion of free speech" and become the same as every other news media: a place to broadcast the views of their owners and target audience, no more, no less.

In conclusion, every company have the right to pick and choose what they want to enable to be said on their property but as soon as they choose to censor they become yet another biased source just like every other else.

The goal is to make the data less useful and harder to tie to an individual or separate from fake data, and to increase the cost of collecting and storing such data.

Here is a new form, the same as the fighting spam one with minor changes. Feel free to use it as most of the measures proposed to fight surveillance fail for the same reasons.

Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (X) vigilante

approach to fighting surveillance. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws not included here)

(X) Governments can easily use it to identify dissidents
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop surveillance for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users will not put up with it
(X) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from everyone
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Governments don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for communication
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
(X) Ease of searching all text based communication
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in current solutions
( ) Susceptibility of other forms of encryption
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all surveillance approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of surveillance
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people
( ) Dishonesty on the part of everyone themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) Encryption should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Speech should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government decrypting my stuff
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Anonymous declares war on city of Orlando (28/Jun/2011)
Anonymous vs. Zetas: Hackers Taking On The Drug Cartel (02/Nov/2011)
Anonymous wages war on Westboro Baptist Church (17/Dez/2012)
Anonymous Declares War on Singapore (06/Nov/2013)

Given the fallback on the last weeks hoax declaration of war on ISIS by Mexican cartel leader 'El Chapo' the media is showing that the powers of "the fourth state" given to them is not being used to inform the public but to entertain them, distracting from more important issues (and of course, to sell advertisement).

Nice try, DICE inc, trying to persuade us with your subliminal, liminal and even superliminal messages!

Not FUD at all. There is an expectation when you turn of a camera / motion detector that it will stop performing its main function (filming, detecting motion) and just do nothing instead.

imagine a faucet that, when turned off, instead of stopping the flow of water it simply closed the loop in the sink, storing the water somewhere locally for further reuse.

People would not appreciate the fact that it is not letting the water go away because they want the faucet to stop running water when off.

This is a feel good measure, the very definition of "slacktivism".

Reporting twitter accounts from people most likely fanboying from their comfortable homes in the west is nothing, how long until they create another account? 1 hour, 2 hours?

When one look back and look at the most remarkable hacks against high profile targets (like the one Saudi Aramco suffered in 2012.) it puts in context that this kind of initiative is well intentioned but naive and a waste of time for the volunteers.

This is just another thinly veiled attack on Christianity and other religions.

No, it is not. It is actually a very clever way to highlight the importance of the separation between church and state.

The very first part of the First Amendment is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and, making explicit exceptions for religious attire in legislation breaks not only the spirit but also the letter of that text.

Making an exception in the law for religious reasons (like in this case, no head gear except for religious reasons) undermine that very principle and opens the door for other kinds of abuse and, in the future, even in the establishment of a state endorsed religion, one that may not even be the one you profess if you think about it.

In Portugal the title "engineer" is subject to acreditation by the Order (much like medical doctors or lawyers) and not all students that complete an engineering school can use engineer as the professional title.

It's a distinction without a difference anyway, people mostly want to use "engineer" and "doctor" as a sign of status (replacing the old system of royal and noble ranks) while professionally it carries no difference at all.

A better headline (and interestingly missing from ./ summary) comes from techcrunch: YouTube Will Completely Remove Videos Of Creators Who Don't Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

YouTube made its top video creators an offer they literally couldn't refuse, or they'd have their content disappear. Today YouTube confirmed that any "partner" creator who earns a cut of ad revenue but doesn't agree to sign its revenue share deal for its new YouTube Red $9.99 ad-free subscription will have their videos hidden from public view on both the ad-supported and ad-free tiers. That includes videos by popular comedians, musicians, game commentators, and DIY instructors.

It's a tough pill to swallow that makes YouTube look like a bully. Though turning existing fans into paid subscribers instead of free viewers could earn creators more than the ad revenue, forcing them into the deal seems heavy-handed.

Google says the goal is to offer consistency, so people thinking about subscribing to Red don't have to worry about their favorite content not being available in the ad-free service. But there's no explanation why it couldn't just flag videos of those who don't sign the deal as "Not On Red", and instead had to go with a sign-or-disappear strategy.

According to Chief Business Officer Robert Kyncl at today's YouTube Red launch event, 99% of content consumed on YouTube will be still available, noting that the vast majority of creators signed the deal. But they didn't have much choice, otherwise they'd lose out on both the previous ad revenue, the new subscription revenue, and the connection with fans.